Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Final Fantasy)
    It's sickly sweet... almost adorable, that they're absolutely convinced employers are lovely bunnies in a fairytale and will always follow the rules and laws to a letter. Yep, if it's supposed to work in theory then it must surely work in practice right? I'm sure they have extensive experience of the real world in such areas. :rolleyes:

    Many companies outsource their recruitment process to companies that provide ATS (applicant tracking systems) as a service. One of my previous roles was spent just over a year working on these systems and we dealt with some pretty big clients. What many candidates don't often realise is how automated the system is, for instance there's various 'sifting' levels e.g. any employment gaps or criminal history generally result in a hard or killer sift status (3 - 5 working days waiting then a rejection, or immediate rejection the following working day) with the variables and dynamic email templates defined by the client.

    What they also don't realise is how much is actually known about them and their history - since there's such a huge number of applicants, about 75% (hundreds, sometimes thousands) are soft/hard sifted and don't make it to the various subsequent stages... by the final stage there's probably about 10 candidates left at best. After the tailored tests and assessment centres they continue to learn more about them - yes they are constrained by disability laws, but in business-to-business relationships there's a certain level of understanding - it's completely different to business-to-customer relations, there's no expectation to appear nice or politically correct. The data held is used for stats and subjected to data-mining for various uses. Often the data is later used and/or shared. It's very rare to have little information on any person these days and I suspect that years later (to now, 2016), further significant advancements have been developed - there were definitely some interesting ideas before I left.

    Dismissals are taken very seriously too, and if not disclosed, they have a way of finding out and the candidate will be sifted - reasons are rarely given unless they've passed the final stage. If they do get the role, there's a probationary period just like any other job (usually 3 - 6 months). If you failed to disclose anything that impacts on your work and is later discovered, that's typically a week's notice at worse, or disciplinary action at best.

    Everything is all nice and sweet when it comes to business-to-candidate relations, and as long as you continue to perform, you'll continue to be rewarded, supported and treated very well - and if you fit in with the team, pass your probations it's generally all good. But if your work is being affected, things can turn nasty very quickly. And trust me, employers know precisely what steps and measures to take that cover their own backs and do not circumvent disability laws or cannot be proven that it was linked to this at all. Everything is recorded and it's in the best interest of the candidate to not cause a fuss lest they have trouble in their next job or career search.

    It's very naive for students here to think only the best intentions of employers and that they're strictly law abiding... don't forget that it's a business first and foremost. And the above is just the tip of the iceberg... the interviews themselves are a different story altogether, nothing is ever as it appears - on the face of it, yes everything is going smoothly and yes they will be obliged to provide you with reasonable adjustments - many don't mind it, as long as they are receiving something in return if they proceed with you. Long post, but still very brief, barely touching on anything here. I will say however, good luck to anyone that starts getting arrogant with the employer on disability/discrimination laws, as if that will somehow miraculously save you... reality check: they've been doing this for much longer than you have. Yeah life sucks and isn't fair and all, well best wishes in trying to explain that to them if you're unable to do your duties and/or failed to disclose anything. Best thing you can do for yourself is acquire alternative skills, coping mechanisms and determine exactly what you need to help you through this before you begin full-time employment in a high skilled role (if a high skilled role is what you're aiming for).
    I cannot add anything to that! Yes, all over TSR students are shouting "BUT THE LAW!" and "Go to HR!" No, the company is not on your side. Your experience in recruitment confirmed my suspicions about the systems they use to churn through those thousands of applicants.

    Ahhh this reminds me of the time I was made redundant because...I couldn't speak German (this was not asked for when I started the job at all) and I had to sign documentation wherein I promised to never say a negative word about my employer, ever, after having experienced extreme sexual harassment/assault from bosses. Just one of the many anecdotes that I'm sure we both have that should be a warning to anyone yet to enter the world of work thinking you'll be cut any kind of slack.

    Also someone mentioned that admin/data entry was a 'skilled' job that require apparently special memory skills! It is defined as unskilled work and will be an element of just about every desk job!!

    Yes, coping mechanisms is what people should be teaching themselves and what schools should be helping children to develop.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morgan8002)
    I'm saying:
    X is slow to process maths questions of a particular kind \nRightarrow X is less able at (this kind of) maths.

    This is slightly different from the negation of your above statement.
    I've pluralised to 'questions' because everyone will struggle on some question or another so you can't use single case in isolation to make logical conclusions.
    The other difference is "slow" vs "finds difficult". This is because in your original post you were talking about people being slow at processing questions. I'm arguing against that, rather than people finding it difficult to process questions.
    Being slow to process a question and finding it difficult to process a question are two quite different things.

    Finding it difficult is much more complex to argue about.
    Your statement above (with added pluralisation) is true if the questions are reasonably clear in my opinion. The terms aren't well defined enough to state it as a true logical statement though.
    I think this is just semantics.

    Finding questions difficult to process => slower to process questions => less able at that kind of maths

    Just to be clear so no further misunderstanding, I have defined 'process' == finding what the question requires in order to answer it (NOT time to complete answer)

    Yes you are correct if you spotted the assumption that maths questions test maths ability. (corollary: slow processing times => lower exam grade)

    If you disagree with this assumption then the conversation moves away from real world applications, e.g. extra time, to mere philosophical debate.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morgan8002)

    There are many forms of communication. Someone with autism may for example struggle to have a conversation but be amazing at writing essays. It should be considered case by case.
    Yes I agree - if you read my other posts you will see that that is what I've been trying to say. Every single person is different, each case is different so people shouldn't judge just because they know someone with the same condition that doesn't need extra time, doesn't mean that automatically others with said condition do/don't need extra time.

    My point about autism was to a different poster who claimed that autism alone wasn't a reason good enough for extra time, they were saying they had to have autism alongside another condition e.g. dyslexia in order to be entitled to the extra time. I disagreed as autism has plenty of traits which could mean that they are entitled to extra time.

    Some people with dyselxia may need extra time. Some may not. Same with autism, dyspraxia ... a long list of conditions. Everybody is different.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nerwen)
    Just because it takes you longer to process a maths question it does not make you less able at maths at all, it makes it more difficult for you to complete a maths exam in the given time.

    Just because you have to read a question that tells you to differentiate some function and find the stationary points a couple of times in order to understand it, it doesn't mean that you are any less able when it comes to differentiating etc.

    Even at university level, what you have claimed is not the case. I am a student with "slow processing speed" due to my disabilities and I receive extra time, however I am also one of the most able mathematicians in my year (I have even been offered the chance to do a research internship and the chance to create my own projects to study as part of the degree as a result of this). I don't us coursework extensions at all, however I am the only person to gain full marks in each piece of Number Theory coursework this year and I am top of the year in several of the modules.

    I never dropped a mark in one piece of school work or homework throughout the whole of my time in school, so I wasn't bad at GCSE or A-level mathematics at all, I even self-taught myself my further-maths A-level and most of my maths A-level (achieving full-marks in nearly every module).

    I feel like part of the problem comes from you not completely understanding what people mean when they talk about "processing the question", and to be fair it is difficult to explain. It takes a few reads for the words to kind of connect fully if that makes sense, for my brain to just kind of register the sentence fully. So I am not wondering "What is differentiation? How do I find stationary points again?", it just takes it a bit longer for it to go from being letters on a page to a sentence with any kind of meaning in my head.

    I really don't like commenting on these threads at all, and I have been trying to avoid it, but I felt like I could maybe try a better explanation. While it is not dyslexia, if it helps you to understand more then maybe think about it like dyslexia. It feels like this slower processing speed thing is being misunderstood somewhat, and your maths comments maybe struck a nerve a little.

    I really shouldn't have commented, I am sorry.
    No need to apologise ☺ I think you should have commented because noone has perfect knowledge so the more perspectives on this topic the closer this discussion can get to the truth.

    However I have to disagree. I don't see 'ability to differentiate' as being related to 'ability at math'. Anyone can rote learn a method and follow it through when told to do so. The bit that makes you good at maths is using intuition to know which method to use and why you're using it. 'Processing the question' is required for the latter but not the former. To repeat, speed/consistency at differentiation does not involve processing the question.

    I don't claim to know if you are good at maths or not but it is completely untrue that you never dropped a mark in a piece of school work. I wish you hadn't said that because I was respecting your point of view until then.

    You say you have a disability 'like dyslexia but not dyslexia'. Please provide an accurate name or a source so I understand what you're referring to.

    I completely completely agree that if words appear jumbled to you and you struggle to connect them into sentences with basic meanings then you should definitely get extra time. I have already defined 'processing a question' and it is not related to that. That sounds more like difficulty with written communication rather than seeing what the question is asking you to do.

    Plenty of people with no proven disabilities struggle with the latter but have no problem with written communication. Do you think they should get extra time? This is what I'm arguing against not dyslexia or dyslexia-like disabilities.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    I think this is just semantics.

    Finding questions difficult to process => slower to process questions => less able at that kind of maths

    Just to be clear so no further misunderstanding, I have defined 'process' == finding what the question requires in order to answer it (NOT time to complete answer)

    Yes you are correct if you spotted the assumption that maths questions test maths ability. (corollary: slow processing times => lower exam grade)

    If you disagree with this assumption then the conversation moves away from real world applications, e.g. extra time, to mere philosophical debate.
    It's not semantics. Your first implication doesn't have a backwards implication, so the first two statements aren't equivalent.

    As I've said before, your second implication is incorrect. I'll give a counterexample. Let's say that A and B are people. A takes 3 times as long to process a question as person B. A also knows(or can derive) the quadratic formula, but B doesn't know and doesn't know how to derive it(or how to complete the square). If we give each of them a large number of randomly generated quadratics with integer coefficients as questions, A will take a few seconds extra per question to process it but has the knowledge necessary to answer more questions than B. A is more able than B at this kind of maths.

    That's the definition of process I was also using. It's good that we have that more concrete.

    I agree with this assumption. Exams aren't prefect in real life, but let's assume for the purposes of the argument \exists a surjective increasing correspondence between ability and exam score. Exam score can't give an exact measurement of ability(here assumed to be continuous) due to the discretised nature of exam scores, but it can give a close approximation, which is all we really need. Of course extra time may be needed to establish this surjection.
    The statement you've given is only a corollary if your second implication is true.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    No need to apologise ☺ I think you should have commented because noone has perfect knowledge so the more perspectives on this topic the closer this discussion can get to the truth.

    However I have to disagree. I don't see 'ability to differentiate' as being related to 'ability at math'. Anyone can rote learn a method and follow it through when told to do so. The bit that makes you good at maths is using intuition to know which method to use and why you're using it. 'Processing the question' is required for the latter but not the former. To repeat, speed/consistency at differentiation does not involve processing the question.

    I don't claim to know if you are good at maths or not but it is completely untrue that you never dropped a mark in a piece of school work. I wish you hadn't said that because I was respecting your point of view until then.

    You say you have a disability 'like dyslexia but not dyslexia'. Please provide an accurate name or a source so I understand what you're referring to.

    I completely completely agree that if words appear jumbled to you and you struggle to connect them into sentences with basic meanings then you should definitely get extra time. I have already defined 'processing a question' and it is not related to that. That sounds more like difficulty with written communication rather than seeing what the question is asking you to do.

    Plenty of people with no proven disabilities struggle with the latter but have no problem with written communication. Do you think they should get extra time? This is what I'm arguing against not dyslexia or dyslexia-like disabilities.
    This topic is in within the GCSE's sub-forum, and at that level math is about rote learning. You are told to complete the square, or rearrange to make x the subject of the formula.

    However the whole point of my post was to point out that "slow processing speed" is not a hindrance to maths ability, it just makes maths exams harder. The truth is that throughout school, I never dropped a mark on a piece of maths school work or homework, I was meticulous and very good at maths. Even at A-level, rote learning can easily get you an A*.

    I have autism (and related to that I also have anxiety, OCD, and depression), my point about the dyslexia thing is that I believe that you are misinterpreting the whole slow processing thing. It isn't the case that I look at a question and it takes me a long time to come up with a method to solve it (on the contrary, I am very quick when it comes to that), it takes longer to simply understand the words in the question together.

    You say that this slow processing speed thing prevents someone being good at maths, but that is simply not true. As a maths student that is at a top university and is actively involved in research, I can tell you that it is simply not true. Many amazing mathematicians that lecture in the department have similar issues, largely because autism is not uncommon within mathematics at all. Your statement is false as there are many counter-examples, and I am one.

    As someone that studies maths at university and has "slow processing speed" when it comes to reading things, I would just like to inform you that assertions about what people need to be good at maths are wrong.

    This slow process speed thing that you seem to be so hung up on is not about it taking longer to think of how to tackle the question, or come up with a method. It is simply taking longer to understand the words on a page, and that doesn't stop somebody being a great mathematician
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morgan8002)
    While I agree that GCSEs could be removed with little effect, SATs are required to ensure that primary schools keep some standard of teaching.
    I don't think there's any real alternative for A-levels. For university courses coursework could be used more but I think exams are still necessary.
    SATs don't benefit the children; they benefit the government. In the context of primary school, especially, SATs prevent real learning from taking place. My nephew recently received his year three report card, with one target stating he needed to "use more fronted adverbials" in his writing. I don't know about you, but I feel that is a completely inappropriate level of complexity for a seven year old to be having to grasp. The focus is on rote learning ill-suited subject matter; then revising it for the tests, which effectively leaves less time for the children to learn new things that directly benefit their growing-up: social skills, co-operative working, hygiene, healthy living - good food, regular exercise, sports and leisure time. There are things that children should be doing at primary school instead of preparing for SATs that would improve their health and well-being: making them happier, more rounded and better prepared for adolescence. They absolutely need to learn academic skills alongside their 'life skills', but the balance is completely ruined by the existence of SATs in primary education.

    Edit: Yes, for university admission, I accept that some formal examination is required - afterall, university is supposed to be serious, academic study. Now of course, too many students are going to university directly after compulsory education. Only students who have shown a natural aptitude for academic study should be encouraged to move on to A Levels and then go to university - the majority of secondary school students are not actually suited for university-level study by the time their compulsory education comes to an end. There needs to be a culture shift - schools need to play a bigger part here, in encouraging a few years of work directly after compulsory education. After some work and life experience, young people would be better able to decide if they really need a degree to progress, and if it seems as if they do, perhaps then they should think about university as a mature student.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Андрей)
    SATs don't benefit the children; they benefit the government. In the context of primary school, especially, SATs prevent real learning from taking place. My nephew recently received his year three report card, with one target stating he needed to "use more fronted adverbials" in his writing. I don't know about you, but I feel that is a completely inappropriate level of complexity for a seven year old to be having to grasp. The focus is on rote learning ill-suited subject matter; then revising it for the tests, which effectively leaves less time for the children to learn new things that directly benefit their growing-up: social skills, co-operative working, hygiene, healthy living - good food, regular exercise, sports and leisure time. There are things that children should be doing at primary school instead of preparing for SATs that would improve their health and well-being: making them happier, more rounded and better prepared for adolescence. They absolutely need to learn academic skills alongside their 'life skills', but the balance is completely ruined by the existence of SATs in primary education.
    SATs are one of the principal motivators for primary schools to teach: without them they'd just teach whatever they feel like, which would be primarily religion-based for most schools.
    Why do you think it's inappropriate? It's not a difficult concept to grasp and whilst the name may be unfamiliar the child will already know how to use it. I do feel that it's counterproductive to insist on a particular writing style though.
    What makes you say that it's ill-suited? From what I remember about primary school all subjects contained primarily relevant and useful content except for PE, French, music, drama, RE and cooking. Coincidentally none of these subjects have SATs exams. Of course it could be much more in-depth in those subjects that do teach relevant and useful content.
    Who is going to revise seriously for SATs? You can't make an argument that because of that 1 hour they spent doing a past paper after school the day before the exam they somehow can't learn as much in the lessons.
    Social skills and cooperative working will already be learned in break times and in lessons and I'm not sure how you'd teach it anyway.
    Hygiene should be taught by the parents.
    They do teach some nutrition in primary school, both as a separate subject and in biology. The current amount is fine: most students don't have much control over their diet until much later.
    How can you teach regular exercise and sport? I think you mean teach the benefits of regular exercise and sport, which is done to some degree currently. Again, students of this age don't have much control. If you mean force them to exercise regularly, then you'd really just be putting them off exercising regularly.
    What do you mean by teach leisure time?
    Ok. What things do you think they could be doing rather than preparing for SATs?
    Edit: Yes, for university admission, I accept that some formal examination is required - afterall, university is supposed to be serious, academic study. Now of course, too many students are going to university directly after compulsory education. Only students who have shown a natural aptitude for academic study should be encouraged to move on to A Levels and then go to university - the majority of secondary school students are not actually suited for university-level study by the time their compulsory education comes to an end. There needs to be a culture shift - schools need to play a bigger part here, in encouraging a few years of work directly after compulsory education. After some work and life experience, young people would be better able to decide if they really need a degree to progress, and if it seems as if they do, perhaps then they should think about university as a mature student.
    This only happens in England, since compulsory education finishes at 16 in the rest of the UK. What is your problem with people going to university straight after finishing sixth form/college in England? If they don't go straight away then they're likely to get rusty in their skills.
    How can you use A-levels to work out who shows a natural aptitude for academic study? You need more serious exams if you want to do that. STEP or similar would be better, but many would argue that even these aren't good indicators and that a degree in the subject is a good pointer for natural aptitude.
    How are schools going to influence people's decisions?
    I think it really depends on whether they want the degree primarily to further their career or to learn stuff.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morgan8002)
    Spoiler:
    Show
    It's not semantics. Your first implication doesn't have a backwards implication, so the first two statements aren't equivalent.

    As I've said before, your second implication is incorrect. I'll give a counterexample. Let's say that A and B are people. A takes 3 times as long to process a question as person B. A also knows(or can derive) the quadratic formula, but B doesn't know and doesn't know how to derive it(or how to complete the square). If we give each of them a large number of randomly generated quadratics with integer coefficients as questions, A will take a few seconds extra per question to process it but has the knowledge necessary to answer more questions than B. A is more able than B at this kind of maths.

    That's the definition of process I was also using. It's good that we have that more concrete.

    I agree with this assumption. Exams aren't prefect in real life, but let's assume for the purposes of the argument \exists a surjective increasing correspondence between ability and exam score. Exam score can't give an exact measurement of ability(here assumed to be continuous) due to the discretised nature of exam scores, but it can give a close approximation, which is all we really need. Of course extra time may be needed to establish this surjection.
    The statement you've given is only a corollary if your second implication is true.
    Your A and B example is the most flawed logic I have come across lately. Did not expect that from you. Ever heard of ceteris paribus? You can only change one variable at a time, in this case 'processing speed'. My argument is simply 'slow processing speed but otherwise equal => less able at maths'. Don't know why you are getting confused.

    Secondly, knowledge of maths is not related to ability at maths. Do you honestly think that someone who knows the quadratic formula is better at maths than someone who doesn't (certeris paribus)?

    Yes, if you don't agree with my argument you won't agree with my corollary.

    (Original post by Nerwen)
    Spoiler:
    Show
    This topic is in within the GCSE's sub-forum, and at that level math is about rote learning. You are told to complete the square, or rearrange to make x the subject of the formula.

    However the whole point of my post was to point out that "slow processing speed" is not a hindrance to maths ability, it just makes maths exams harder. The truth is that throughout school, I never dropped a mark on a piece of maths school work or homework, I was meticulous and very good at maths. Even at A-level, rote learning can easily get you an A*.

    I have autism (and related to that I also have anxiety, OCD, and depression), my point about the dyslexia thing is that I believe that you are misinterpreting the whole slow processing thing. It isn't the case that I look at a question and it takes me a long time to come up with a method to solve it (on the contrary, I am very quick when it comes to that), it takes longer to simply understand the words in the question together.

    You say that this slow processing speed thing prevents someone being good at maths, but that is simply not true. As a maths student that is at a top university and is actively involved in research, I can tell you that it is simply not true. Many amazing mathematicians that lecture in the department have similar issues, largely because autism is not uncommon within mathematics at all. Your statement is false as there are many counter-examples, and I am one.

    As someone that studies maths at university and has "slow processing speed" when it comes to reading things, I would just like to inform you that assertions about what people need to be good at maths are wrong.

    This slow process speed thing that you seem to be so hung up on is not about it taking longer to think of how to tackle the question, or come up with a method. It is simply taking longer to understand the words on a page, and that doesn't stop somebody being a great mathematician
    Maths may be about rote learning at GCSE but does that make you more able at maths in general? The answer is no unless you will accept that someone who got higher marks at GCSE than you is more able at maths (ceteris paribus). Btw you definitely dropped marks and you won't be able to fool me otherwise.

    You disagree with my definition of 'slow processing speed' that's fine. Now we are no longer arguing about the same thing. Nothing I said was untrue actually, you just think I am saying something I am not. Nowhere did I say you have slow processing times according to the definition I gave to be extremely clear.

    I think that people, like you, who struggle with written communication, should be given extra time. So should all the other people in your university department.

    P.S. you didn't answer my question:

    Plenty of people with no proven disabilities struggle with the latter but have no problem with written communication. Do you think they should get extra time?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Yes and no to be honest. I think that it is important that all people are given an equal opportunity. But I think that it is important that people monitor the ways in which you are given extra time. I am curious as to whether some people are given extra time, even if they don't need it. Also, I think the timing situation with exams is a little bit weird, because after all, they are testing your subject knowledge, therefore, should you have to do it under timed conditions?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    Your A and B example is the most flawed logic I have come across lately. Did not expect that from you. Ever heard of ceteris paribus? You can only change one variable at a time, in this case 'processing speed'. My argument is simply 'slow processing speed but otherwise equal => less able at maths'. Don't know why you are getting confused.

    Secondly, knowledge of maths is not related to ability at maths. Do you honestly think that someone who knows the quadratic formula is better at maths than someone who doesn't (certeris paribus)?

    Yes, if you don't agree with my argument you won't agree with my corollary.
    My counterexample is fully valid. Reread the statement in your previous post. I study in more logic based than empirical areas and haven't studied Latin so haven't heard of that phrase before. So now that I've disproved your main statement you're adopting a much weaker version. That's cute. If two people are exactly the same except one can process questions faster then that person is marginally better at that kind of maths.

    Yes. There are many factors that contribute to ability.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morgan8002)
    My counterexample is fully valid. Reread the statement in your previous post. I study in more logic based than empirical areas and haven't studied Latin so haven't heard of that phrase before. So now that I've disproved your main statement you're adopting a much weaker version. That's cute. If two people are exactly the same except one can process questions faster then that person is marginally better at that kind of maths.

    Yes. There are many factors that contribute to ability.
    No that is not a weaker statement. You do not know logic. Once you learn about ceteris paribus you will realise why you are wrong.

    Also you can introduce semantics like "marginally" all you want. The fact that you think knowledge of a formula implies ability at maths reveals a lot about the way you think...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    My friend is dyslexic, but she has no trouble with numbers, in fact she's very good at them. She gets extra time in maths, and she admits she doesn't need it. That's not really fair. However I do think that in the majority cases it is fair and necessary.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    No that is not a weaker statement. You do not know logic. Once you learn about ceteris paribus you will realise why you are wrong.

    Also you can introduce semantics like "marginally" all you want. The fact that you think knowledge of a formula implies ability at maths reveals a lot about the way you think...
    It is a weaker statement. I do know logic. I've taken a module on symbolic logic and all of my other modules require logic to some degree. I did spend a couple of seconds learning what ceteris paribus is. Unfortunately it's not relevant to your original statement and has no place in logic.

    Thanks for your permission to use words.

    I'm getting bored of arguing with you.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morgan8002)
    It is a weaker statement. I do know logic. I've taken a module on symbolic logic and all of my other modules require logic to some degree. I did spend a couple of seconds learning what ceteris paribus is. Unfortunately it's not relevant to your original statement and has no place in logic.

    Thanks for your permission to use words.

    I'm getting bored of arguing with you.
    Nice irrational content.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by lookbackinanger)
    My friend is dyslexic, but she has no trouble with numbers, in fact she's very good at them. She gets extra time in maths, and she admits she doesn't need it. That's not really fair. However I do think that in the majority cases it is fair and necessary.
    I can understand it. If the people are able to get it in time in exams although they have a handicap, it has not to be. But if those people with a handicap really need it - so unable to get it in time -, they should have an extra time.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)

    Maths may be about rote learning at GCSE but does that make you more able at maths in general? The answer is no unless you will accept that someone who got higher marks at GCSE than you is more able at maths (ceteris paribus). Btw you definitely dropped marks and you won't be able to fool me otherwise.

    You disagree with my definition of 'slow processing speed' that's fine. Now we are no longer arguing about the same thing. Nothing I said was untrue actually, you just think I am saying something I am not. Nowhere did I say you have slow processing times according to the definition I gave to be extremely clear.

    I think that people, like you, who struggle with written communication, should be given extra time. So should all the other people in your university department.

    P.S. you didn't answer my question:

    Plenty of people with no proven disabilities struggle with the latter but have no problem with written communication. Do you think they should get extra time?
    To be honest, your opinion on my school work marks matter little, and don't impact this discussion much at all. I have no need to convince you, and I won't try.

    While maybe you have tried to clearly define process, my problem comes from things like this:
    (Original post by xylas)
    "if your brain is slow to process, then obviously you are less able to understand the question than someone else (i.e. someone has to repeat the same thing to you many times for you to process it)"
    Seemingly you have now defined processing to mean it takes you longer to think of the correct approach, but this does not seem to be what you were initially suggesting. I fear that a lot of people (myself included) would interpret that to mean that someone needs a question repeated to them to understand, not to come up with a method to solve it.

    As you have more clearly defined what you are referring to by processing speed I take less issue with your position now, I still disagree with it to some extent though. I don't believe your ability to "process" maths questions at GCSE or A-level gives much of an indication of your mathematical ability at all, as all it tests is your ability to regurgitate a method when told. It is a poor indicator of mathematical ability (and one of the reasons several universities opt to use STEP, and many aspiring maths students opt to sit STEP regardless of whether it is necessary), and so I am opposed to deeming someone to be lacking in mathematical ability based on their ability to "process" these questions. I focus on GCSE and A-level specifically initially as this is in the GCSE sub-forum.

    In general, being slower to find methods is a disadvantage, but if you can eventually find methods of proof that work and you can justify your reasoning in the end then you clearly have some degree of mathematical ability. If it takes you a long time to try and find a way to deal with a question, then maybe you are lacking in mathematical ability, but maybe you just need to do more practice (quite possibly a lot more), maybe you should do more reading and find sources that work better for you, or maybe it isn't the right kind of maths for you (it is a very broad field with very different types of question). It is isn't the case that if you are slow at processing a maths question that you lack mathematical ability, it isn't a sufficient condition.

    I will not debate that point with you further, ultimately there is little point if you have made your mind up on what you believe is necessary for someone to be good at maths. It is difficult to argue on what makes someone good at maths or what mathematical ability with someone who does not have as much experience with higher level maths, because you naturally have very different perspectives (I don't think that is worded right, I hope you understand what I am trying to convey).

    I think had I been more clear on what you meant by processing questions, then I wouldn't have commented in the first place. So I do not have any intention of continuing the discussion further. In regards to your question, I do not intend to answer it. I didn't enter this discussion to debate who does or does not deserve extra time, but rather to try and better understand what you meant by processing speeds and to clear up some misconceptions that I was worried would be around from statements earlier in the conversation.

    Also I will be blocking this site after this, as my term starts on Monday and I do not allow myself access to this site during term time (talking online can cause me a lot of distress, and so I avoid it completely during times of work). Please do not take offence if I do not respond at all, I have just suffered from very frequent panic attacks since deciding to engage in this conversation.

    It has been good discussing this with you, if I return online then I will post so that we may continue this discussion at a later date.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nerwen)
    Spoiler:
    Show
    To be honest, your opinion on my school work marks matter little, and don't impact this discussion much at all. I have no need to convince you, and I won't try.

    While maybe you have tried to clearly define process, my problem comes from things like this:


    Seemingly you have now defined processing to mean it takes you longer to think of the correct approach, but this does not seem to be what you were initially suggesting. I fear that a lot of people (myself included) would interpret that to mean that someone needs a question repeated to them to understand, not to come up with a method to solve it.

    As you have more clearly defined what you are referring to by processing speed I take less issue with your position now, I still disagree with it to some extent though. I don't believe your ability to "process" maths questions at GCSE or A-level gives much of an indication of your mathematical ability at all, as all it tests is your ability to regurgitate a method when told. It is a poor indicator of mathematical ability (and one of the reasons several universities opt to use STEP, and many aspiring maths students opt to sit STEP regardless of whether it is necessary), and so I am opposed to deeming someone to be lacking in mathematical ability based on their ability to "process" these questions. I focus on GCSE and A-level specifically initially as this is in the GCSE sub-forum.

    In general, being slower to find methods is a disadvantage, but if you can eventually find methods of proof that work and you can justify your reasoning in the end then you clearly have some degree of mathematical ability. If it takes you a long time to try and find a way to deal with a question, then maybe you are lacking in mathematical ability, but maybe you just need to do more practice (quite possibly a lot more), maybe you should do more reading and find sources that work better for you, or maybe it isn't the right kind of maths for you (it is a very broad field with very different types of question). It is isn't the case that if you are slow at processing a maths question that you lack mathematical ability, it isn't a sufficient condition.

    I will not debate that point with you further, ultimately there is little point if you have made your mind up on what you believe is necessary for someone to be good at maths. It is difficult to argue on what makes someone good at maths or what mathematical ability with someone who does not have as much experience with higher level maths, because you naturally have very different perspectives (I don't think that is worded right, I hope you understand what I am trying to convey).

    I think had I been more clear on what you meant by processing questions, then I wouldn't have commented in the first place. So I do not have any intention of continuing the discussion further. In regards to your question, I do not intend to answer it. I didn't enter this discussion to debate who does or does not deserve extra time, but rather to try and better understand what you meant by processing speeds and to clear up some misconceptions that I was worried would be around from statements earlier in the conversation.

    Also I will be blocking this site after this, as my term starts on Monday and I do not allow myself access to this site during term time (talking online can cause me a lot of distress, and so I avoid it completely during times of work). Please do not take offence if I do not respond at all, I have just suffered from very frequent panic attacks since deciding to engage in this conversation.

    It has been good discussing this with you, if I return online then I will post so that we may continue this discussion at a later date.
    You shouldn't have brought it up then. Glad you're backing down on that.

    No-one lacks ability in the sense you are using. If you don't put the practice in then you will be less able than someone else. Same with anything else - musical instruments, sport, languages etc. Don't confuse yourself again.

    Replace A level with STEP then if it makes you feel better. Pretty weak argument you've got there.

    Are you assuming I have less experience than you with higher level maths? That would be very foolish of you. If you value experience over logic then that says a lot about you.

    If I have to repeat a question twice and you still won't answer it then I lose respect for you.
    /discussion
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    You shouldn't have brought it up then. Glad you're backing down on that.

    No-one lacks ability in the sense you are using. If you don't put the practice in then you will be less able than someone else. Same with anything else - musical instruments, sport, languages etc. Don't confuse yourself again.

    Replace A level with STEP then if it makes you feel better. Pretty weak argument you've got there.

    Are you assuming I have less experience than you with higher level maths? That would be very foolish of you. If you value experience over logic then that says a lot about you.

    If I have to repeat a question twice and you still won't answer it then I lose respect for you.
    /discussion
    First of all, part of the problem here is with the defintion of mathematical ability. But my point still stands that being slow when finding methods in maths does not mean you lack mathematical ability, speed is not necessary for mathematical ability.

    You are a medical student, not a full-time maths student. It is a perfectly logical assumption to make that you have less experience with higher level maths.

    To be quite frank I don't see the problem with refusing to answer a question when I do not wish to debate the topic involved. Just because you ask a question it doesn't mean I am obligated to answer.

    I had initially been hoping that I'd return to a well reasoned response, I probably shouldn't have expected that. I have tried very hard to be respectful, even acknowledging where I feel I have had difficulty communicating appropriately. However your last post seems to show that you have given up all hope of a respectful discussion

    Trying to imply I don't value logic in order to sweep over the fact that you lack experience in the area you are making claims about, and then proclaiming your lack of respect for me due to my refusal to be pulled into a secondary debate. This is poor show in a discussion, and so while I had initially returned to the site today to set up the blocks for it on my phone, I shall be first blocking you.

    It is unfortunate this discussion had to end on such a sour note. I would therefore like to leave you with some quotes by some more qualified people than me when it comes to this area.

    The competitions reinforce the notion that either you ‘have good math genes’, or you do not. They put an emphasis on being quick, at the expense of being deep and thoughtful. They emphasize questions which are puzzles with some hidden trick, rather than more realistic problems where a systematic and persistent approach is important. This discourages many people who are not as quick or as practiced, but might be good at working through problems when they have the time to think through them. Some of the best performers on the contests do become good mathematicians, but there are also many top mathematicians who were not so good on contest math.Quickness is helpful in mathematics, but it is only one of the qualities which is helpful. -- Fields Medalist William Thurston

    ... the most profound contributions to mathematics are often made by tortoises rather than hares. As mathematicians develop, they learn various tricks of the trade, partly from the work of other mathematicians and partly as a result of many hours spent thinking about mathematics. What determines whether they can use their expertise to solve notorious problems is, in large measure, a matter of careful planning: attempting problems that are likely to be fruitful, knowing when to give up a line of thought (a difficult judgement to make), being able to sketch broad outlines of arguments before, just occasionally, managing to fill in the details. -- Fields Medalist Timothy Gowers
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think for some people it is, but others definitely not. If you have an actual learning difficulty, like dyslexia or something like that, then it is fair. But I have a friend who is super smart, no real issues, except for the fact that she just can't shorten her answers. If it was a 1mark question, she'd write a paragraph! I tried to help her, but she just didn't care. It's not fair that she gets extra time, because it's only in some exams that this is a problem. So now she has a huge advantage in subjects she's not even bad at!
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Study tools

    Rosette

    Essay expert

    Learn to write like a pro with our ultimate essay guide.

    Thinking about uni already?

    Thinking about uni already?

    See where you can apply with our uni match tool

    Student chat

    Ask a question

    Chat to other GCSE students and get your study questions answered.

    Creating

    Make study resources

    Create all the resources you need to get the grades.

    Planner

    Create your own Study Plan

    Organise all your homework and exams so you never miss another deadline.

    Resources by subject

    From flashcards to mind maps; there's everything you need for all of your GCSE subjects.

    Papers

    Find past papers

    100s of GCSE past papers for all your subjects at your fingertips.

    Help out other students

    Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.